In the villages of Dubakovo and Slatinka, we succeeded to abolish long term bans on construction of houses and infrastructure. The long term bans – administrative injunctions - had liquidated villages for dozens of years for the sake of the envisioned water dam constructions. The investors insisted on having such injunctions despite the fact that the time frames for the dam constructions have not been specified. The villages, prohibited from any development whatsoever, had deteriorated. Inhabitants had no standing in the injunction proceeding, since the law granted standing only to the proponent of construction. The justice of the Constitutional Court said for media that a construction ban constitutes a legal status, which can be described as a terror of the state on small villages. These two cases led to the legislative changes that significantly limited application of the construction ban as an injunction, and granted standing to affected villages.

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process concerning the planned Slatinka water dam will have to be repeated after our successful Constitutional Court claim. The EIA process was not conducted according to the law, but only according to continually changing draft legislation. When the Parliament finally adopted the law, the Ministry of the Environment declared the whole EIA process to be conducted in compliance with this new law. Affected inhabitants protested because their opportunities to participate in the process were very limited. However, all these complaints had been ignored by the Ministry. The Constitutional Court stated that the Ministry violated the constitutional right of local associations and affected inhabitants to access environmental information.

According to the Slovak Penal Code, racially motivated attacks are punished by higher sanctions. However, application of this principle did not concern attacks on the Roma minority. One of our cases lead to a change of this situation. The Regional Court in Banska Bystrica dismissed the first instance decision and claimed incorrect the conclusions of the lower court that attacks against the Roma cannot be “racially motivated” since the Roma are of the same (Indo-European) race as the “white” majority. Consequently, the change of the legislation eliminated ambiguity in the Penal Code by setting higher sanctions also for attacks against representatives of “ethnic groups”.

In a case of a family real estate in Presov expropriated due to a motorway, VIA IURIS disputed the applied system of expropriation. This system, as a heritage of the past regime, allows a low cost takeover of property of affected citizens. It is also a fact that this system is frequently misused for approving large constructions with significant environmental and social impacts. In this case, the Regional Court in Presov postponed the enforceability of the expropriation decision due to numerous contradictions with the law. The court upheld our motion and initiated proceedings at the Constitutional Court. The motion concerned proportionality and constitutionality of remuneration received by citizens for their expropriated property. The Constitutional Court stated that expropriation proceedings have for years been based on an obsolete legal provision. This case resulted not only in abolishing the expropriation decision, but also in an amendment of the law changing the system of expropriation.

The Constitutional Court ruled that the municipal police in Presov violated the constitutional right to petition and freedom of information. Activists collected signatures under a petition. The police intervened by requesting a special permit. According to the constitution, no permits are required for collecting signatures for a petition. The Court in its verdict also stated that representatives of the police on duty must bear a camera shooting their intervention.

In a case of the private natural reserve "Vlcia", VIA IURIS supported the Wolf Forest Protection Movement in its long-lasting struggle against obstruction of a district authority. The authority resisted in declaring the land a natural reserve despite the fact that all necessary legal conditions were fulfilled. Finally, the Regional Court in Presov ordered the district authority to conclude the contract concerning the declaration of the reserve, which became the first private natural reserve in Slovakia.

An infamous, unbearable odor in the town of Ruzomberok initiated a complicated legal battle. A civic association advocated the interests of local inhabitants through various means, including eight court petitions and a tough negotiation process. The regional court issued two decisions, which temporarily blocked an expansion of the paper mill production facility and, under this pressure, the company initiated serious negotiations. In a court settlement between the civic association and the company (Mondi Business Paper), the citizens achieved three important outputs: an installation and operation of monitoring stations, which show exact and accurate amounts of sulfur substances in the air; determining of an emission limit for sulfur substances; and a complex assessment of health impacts of the facility on local inhabitants (details on www.ovzdusie.sk).

Standing rights, which guarantee an effective public participation in decision-making, are in the core of another VIA IURIS case. Two local activists are claiming standing in a case of the Pezinok landfill, which has particularly negative environmental impacts. They argue that they are living in an affected town and thus their right to a healthy living environment and the right to privacy are affected by the decision-making concerning the landfill. They support their statement by a scientific data on dangerous environmental impacts of the landfill. First instance decision of the Supreme Court issued a precedent-setting verdict sustaining the arguments of the Pezinok activists and broadening legal standings in cases with environmental impacts. The appellate court cancelled this decision and decided against the standing of our clients. The reasoning of this verdict was clearly disputable and our clients challenged this decision at the Constitutional Court. They objected above all, that the Supreme Court´s appelate decision was not properly reasoned, that it did not answer claims rised by our clients and was in internal contradiction with itself. The Constitutional Court in its decision stated a breach of participant's constitutional basic right to a judicial and other legal protection. The Supreme Court dealt with the case subsequently and confirmed that the decisions on standing expelling were illegal.

Concerning the Pezinok landfill, a VIA IURIS attorney has been representing also one of the local activists facing attacks from a company managing the landfill. In a defamation case against our client, the company challenged his critique, particularly his statements that the landfill is illegal and environmentally destructive. The first instance court sustained our argument that the statements of our client in the media article were truthful and the critique objective, proportionate and concrete. This case is currently pending at the appellate court.

Local inhabitants of Radvan in Banska Bystrica were denied standing in a licensing proceeding concerning a gas station in their neighborhood. The decision denying standing was not supported by any reasoning. The Constitutional Court ruled that by issuing a non-reasoned decision the authority violated the constitutional right of local inhabitants to a due process. The Court also abolished the decision – a land use permit, which disregarded the standing of our clients.

Members of the Local Parliament in Povazska Bystrica prohibited our client taking pictures of voting at their public meeting. The voting was important for the local inhabitants because it concerned approval of a sale of property of this city and the circumstances of the sale were not favorable for the city. The Constitutional Court ruled that the Local Parliament breached the constitutional right to access information. In the reasoning of this verdict, the Court states that taking pictures of a public meeting of a local parliament is obtaining information from a meeting of elected representatives of self-government and, as such, presents realization of the constitutional right to seek and disseminate information.

The Ministry of Economy refused to disclose contracts concerning a loan and a subsidy for a KIA Motors investment. The claimant of the contract was an NGO, which focuses on disclosing cases of ineffective management of public funds. Based on our complaint, the Supreme Court ruled that in this case, denying access to the contracts was illegal. The Court reasoned that access to information can be denied only in cases explicitly stated in the law and a decision denying access to information must be properly reasoned.

The Constitutional Court ruled that the decision of the Central Election Commission, which denied participation of national observers at elections, violated their right to information. (VIA IURIS cooperated on this case with the Association for Just Elections – “Civic Eye 98”).

In another election case, the Constitutional Court stated that a constitutional right was breached when a citizen was denied the right to vote for having an invalid voting certificate. Defects of the certificate were caused by an issuing authority (specifically, they used a stamp of a wrong shape). The Court reasoned that this citizen cannot be a victim of the wrongdoing of a public authority and his or her basic rights cannot be denied for mistakes caused by authorities.

Another case, in which courts decided persuasively in favor of freedom of expression in public interest matters, is a case of a purchase of a luxurious building for self-government officials. A member of the Regional Parliament in Banska Bystrica publicly criticized this purchase in the media and argued that such purchase is not in the best interest of citizens and that public resources should be rather used for education and health care in the region. He asserted that the real reason for such transaction is likely to be a "commission" for the purchase of intermediation. Consequently, the Chairman of the Regional self-government filed a protection of personality claim against him. Both a court of first instance and an appellate court dismissed the claim as unfounded and decided in favor of VIA IURIS's client – a member of the Regional Parliament, protecting his freedom of expression in this issue of public interest.

The next case, where a violation of the right to receive information was concerned, was a request of information of an NGO Friends of the Earth-CEPA from the Railway Company of the Slovak Republic. The NGO requested information about financial means granted from the European Investment Bank (EIB) to the Railway Company. The Railway Company answered that the requested information about a credit contract with the EIB is, according to its own internal instructions, a trade secret and will not be made accessible. As an appeal brought no redress, we took a legal action against the Railway Company and the court in its judgment ruled that the Railway Company acted in contradiction with the law.

A civic organization „Citizens for the prosperity of Puchov“ based in the town of Puchov is devoted to overseeing of the self-government and public funds use. This NGO asked the town of Puchov for disclosure of relevant detailed information about mayor's language course abroad because there were some doubts regarding financial aspects and purposefulness of this trip. Representatives of the town refused and so the NGO used appeal and legal action subsequently. When making its decision in this case, the court stated that both the town and the mayor dismissed petition on information illegally and are obliged to consider it properly once again.

A representative of the Association for Customer’s Protection in the Poprad city alerted on some discrepancies in statements on costs that had been delivered to several households in a TV program. As a reaction on this broadcast, the housing enterprise filed a lawsuit against the representative. The company in a legal action demanded protection of the fair reputation, and the association representative should made an excuse for her statements and indemnify injury to the company. According to results of argumentation in a judicial trial, the court found out that no statements were said in that broadcast as the company had alleged. After successful defense of the accused association representative, the plaintiff – the housing enterprise – took back his action. In these circumstances, the risen legal action was rather a bullying toll of intimidation and revenge than a mean for protection of a fair reputation.

An association ”Live and Let to Live“ required protection of its constitutional right to a peace assembly. Association, as an organizer, properly announced an assemblage in advance, according to relevant legal provisions, but administrative authorities required also permission for a specific use of roads. The association did not have such permission not at its disposal, because according the constitutional principles no administrative permits are required for execution of the right to assembly. The administrative authorities fined the association because of a missing permission. The county court, to which association referred, dismissed the compliant and confirmed an opinion of administrative bodies. The final national instance – the Constitutional Court - at last ruled in favor of the association and in its judgment ruled that the county court violated the right to assembly of the association.